Homestead

It's obvious to me, that from the safety of your home, now in the present, feel perfectly comfortably disparaging people in the past who are no longer alive to defend themselves.

You want to cherry picks facts and weave them together to rewrite history to a narrative you've decided on.

Your response is all over the place and I don't have time to write a book to answer everyone of them, so I'll pick out a couple and see what happens.

You make this statement:
"Slavery in the American North died out from mechanization, not moralization."

The North morally rejected slavery, but, work had to be done, so they invested in and developed machinery to do the work instead of slavery, which they rejected.

Yet, you want to take that positive and twist it to your negative narrative.
*********************************
But, you really take the cake on this one:

"Your statement that slaves were purchased with borrowed money needs some sourcing; otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion."

To make capital improvements and run a business, all businesses borrow against their assets.

What was the biggest asset that was owned in the South........................slaves!

So to claim that the fact that money was borrowed against the slaves needs "sourcing," just goes to show the lengths you will go to avoid reality in defending your made up history.

A Plantation consist of X number of acres. Each acres costs N number of dollars.

Each acres has to be worked by S number of Slaves. Each slave costs N number of dollars.

So we have a formula of XN + SN = Y.

That's a lot of dollars and this may come as a surprise to you but most people don't carry that around in their pocket. The money has to be borrowed and the assets bought with it are the collateral and the plantation isn't worth much without the work force to manage it.

Even the nobles who inherited their money in Europe, that then came to the new world to buy the plantations in the new world, still borrowed against their assets to make Capital improvements to increase production and maintain a cash flow.

Tomas Jefferson who is usually criticized for only releasing five slaves, could not release his other slaves, because, they were the collateral for the money he borrowed from his friends during his life time running his property.

Even if Jefferson tried to release al his slaves, his friends (creditors) would have stopped him in a court of law.

This is known history and common knowledge, never mind common sense, it doesn't need to be "sourced," it needs people to know their history and stop making it up.
*************

The Cotton Economy in the South

The Cotton Boom. While the pace of industrialization picked up in the North in the 1850s, the agricultural economy of the slave South grew, if anything, more entrenched. In the decade before the Civil War cotton prices rose more than 50 percent, to 11.5 cents a pound. Booming cotton prices stimulated new western cultivation and actually checked modest initiatives in economic diversification of the previous decade. The U.S. cotton crop nearly doubled, from 2.1 million bales in 1850 to 3.8 million bales ten years later. Not surprisingly, given these figures, the southern economy remained overwhelmingly agricultural. Southern capitalists sank

money into cotton rather than factories or land. More precisely, they invested in slaves; the average slave owner held almost two-thirds of his wealth in slaves in 1860, much less than he held in land. Economic historians have concluded that returns on capital in antebellum Southern manufacturing were reasonable and sometimes lucrative, but they simply failed to attract investors in any numbers. By 1860, while northeastern states such as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had nearly $100 million each invested in manufacturing enterprises, even Virginia, the most industrialized of the Southern states, had invested less than $20 million, and the figure dropped below $5 million elsewhere in the South. A comparison of the value of goods manufactured in each region is similarly lopsided: more than $150 million each for Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, less than $30 million for Virginia, and less than $5 million for Alabama.

Antebellum Railroads. The South did participate in the boom in railroad construction of the 1850s, more than quadrupling its total mileage. Results were less impressive and, more important, less transformative than they proved in the North and Midwest, however. By 1860 the railroad mileage per thousand square miles in the seven most populous Northern states had reached sixty-two; in the seven most populous southern states, the figure was twenty-two. In other words, the southern rail network was less developed by a factor of nearly three. Moreover, Southern railroads tended to run fewer trains and make fewer stops than Northern ones. In addition, most Southern lines were built to connect plantation districts to southern ports; that is, they did not open new territories or serve new industries, as railroads did in the North.

Preindustrial Structures. The dominance of the slave plantation in the southern economic landscape had mul-tifaceted consequences for Southern economic development, including key social and cultural ramifications. As businesses, the plantations channeled economic functions that went well beyond cotton (or sugar or tobacco) cultivation. For example, larger plantation owners either procured or produced on site goods and services that, in the free-labor economy of the Northern states, were produced and exchanged as part of the wider economy. Thus, few towns or villages emerged in the South. Much of the region’s commercial exchange operated through the larger plantation owners or through businessmen known as cotton factors, usually agents of Northern or British firms, set up at river landings to market crops and provide planters with imported manufactured goods. The ideology of slaveownership probably inhibited key industrial values, fostering a fiercely defensive agrarianism and a sharp distaste for Yankee commercialism, industry, and wage labor, particularly as proslavery advocacy grew more insistent in the late-antebellum period. More tangibly, slavery cut off the potential immigration of free labor; while strong immigrant flows were feeding into the Northern economy in the 1850s, the South remained a largely closed society. Whether or not slaveowners can be called profit-minded entrepreneurs and capitalists (a question still under debate), the world they made was distinctly preindustrial, even anti-industrial.

Exports. During the period before the Civil War, Southern staples made up three-fifths of total American exports, and cotton was by far the country’s largest export. Southern plantations and farms supplied three-fourths of the world cotton crop—the mainstay of textile manufacturing in both Great Britain (the world’s leading economic superpower) and the United States. Southern planters saw themselves, and accurately so, as a key component in the Industrial Revolution and a critical part of an international economic system. As one planter bragged in 1853, “Our Cotton is the most wonderful talisman in the world. By its power we are transmuting whatever we choose into whatever we want.”
Read more at:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/cotton-economy-south

Loki Loc: Georgia

"This is known history and common knowledge, never mind common sense, it doesn't need to be "sourced," it needs people to know their history and stop making it up."

As a matter of fact, it is NOT "known history and common knowledge," and it does need to be "sourced. Regarding people needing to know their history and stop making it up, that is excellent advice. You should consider taking it.

Your statement about railroads is true; the North benefited far more than the South, especially since the South paid for most of it.
You have made an effort to do a bit of research into areas that have little to do with the basic premise; that the reasons for the War were economic, and that the states had a right to secede. Virginia, where most of the major battles were fought, and which was invaded by Northern armies when it exercised it's unquestionable right to secede, is an example. As I said, Virginia hedged it's bets, along with New York and Rhode Island, by retaining the option of secession as a precondition to ratification of the Constitution. I believe Texas also did this. It was not until 1869 that any law was passed prohibiting secession. Your statements that the South owed the North compensation for military installations that the South mostly paid for is a bit disingenuous. Your statement that immigration to the South was throttled by
slavery is cherry-picked; in some areas, immigration was inhibited by the lack of free or inexpensive land, or difficulty of access; in other areas, it was unaffected. The influx of Irish in the 1840's due to the potato famine is one case where most of the penniless Irish had to go to New York, as their fares were mostly paid by someone else. They had little choice as to which port they sailed to, and once there, had no money to go elsewhere. The German and Scandinavian immigrants, in better shape financially, opted more for the midwest, and the frontier country of the South, where there was cheap or free land. There was a period from around 1800 till about 1830 when there was little immigration to any parts of the country. The huge increase in immigrants from 1840-1860 was mostly to the North and to the midwest, due to the financial status of the immigrants. Many of these immigrants stayed in cities simply because that was what was familiar to them, and Philadelphia, New York and Boston were the main ports. Many lacked the funds or the inclination to seek their fortunes elsewhere.
Scottish immigrants in the 18th century tended to gravitate more toward what was then the frontier, and were a majority of the population from Western Pennsylvania down through the South to Georgia. In the early part of the 19th century, there was little immigration of anyone to this country, and when the immigration increased, as I said, many, if not most of the immigrants went where they were sent (mostly New York) and had no means and little incentive to go elsewhere.
The original states on the Eastern Seaboard were well-populated by about 1750, and immigrants either went west or stayed in the cities. As the frontier, with it's free or inexpensive land moved west, it moved out of reach of many of the immigrants of 1830-1850. They mostly stayed in the Northern cities, and those who chose to move to the frontier mostly chose the midwest because it was simply easier and cheaper to travel to. Slavery and plantations had far less effect on the immigration than you would have us believe. There simply wasn't much land available, (North or South), in the eastern US seaboard by 1830.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I could not help but add this little codicil in answer to your statement that

"It's obvious to me, that from the safety of your home, now in the present, feel perfectly comfortably disparaging people in the past who are no longer alive to defend themselves."

Who did I disparage who is no longer alive to defend themselves?
*********

"You want to cherry picks facts and weave them together to rewrite history to a narrative you've decided on."

Pot/Kettle; Pigeon/Chessboard.

Homestead

The Southern States were not succeeding, they were rebelling.

You secede by negotiation and agreement which is how the original contract was agreed to......................a cannon makes a very poor pen.

If the South was paying for the rail roads, then why did they build more rail roads in the north, than the south?


The answer is because the South invested it's profits from their agriculture into the North.
The south did not expand their manufacturing base like the north did, so they didn't need the rail roads like the north, so they didn't build them.

Stop blaming piss poor decisions by the south on the north.

The South invested their profits in the North where they got a return on their investments. Those that just saved their money in northern banks, were paid the interest on that money, because that money was used to finance other businesses that paid the Southerners interest for using their money.

That's how banks work.

The Southerners that deposited their money in northern banks and invested money in northern industry made their interest and any profits from those industries they invested in.

The South didn't just hand the north money and walk away.

The south made their profit on their agricultural products and made money on those profits by investing them in the north. So the South profited twice from the same income. In the modern age we call that diversification and the South greatly profited by it.

Your still trying to rewrite history.

Loki Loc: Georgia

se·ces·sion
səˈseSHən/Submit
noun
the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.
"the republics want secession from the union"
historical
the withdrawal of eleven southern states from the Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War.
singular proper noun: Secession; noun: the Secession

Odd, I don't see the word rebellion anywhere. I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. If I were a mover and shaker in the North, I would be upset to see my bankroll walk off also.

You secede by negotiation and agreement which is how the original contract was agreed to......................a cannon makes a very poor pen.
No, you secede by leaving the organization you are seceding from, be it a social club or a country. The agreement of the original contract made by Virginia gave them an absolute right to secede, and by association, the other states who seceded. Read the Tenth Amendment. The powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the people. There was no law prohibiting secession, and the Federal government had no legal authority to attempt to prevent the secession.
Actually, a cannon makes a very good pen; provided you have a sufficiency of them. Just ask the Union.
The bottom line and the issue you continue to avoid is did the seceding states have the right to do so or not? They did. All of your arguments aside, that is the meat and potatoes of the issue. South Carolina seceded legally. They repeatedly demanded that the Union vacate Ft Sumner. When the fort was not vacated, the South fired on the fort. There were no casualties on either side. When a state secedes, it takes over the property that is left there. This is established law.
Virginia seceded legally and peacefully. The Union answer was to send an invading army into the sovereign territory of Virginia to force the state back into the Union it had withdrawn from legally. Virginia was still part of the Union at the time Fort Sumter was fired on. No military force of Virginia fired on any Union forces until armed incursion into the territory of Virginia occurred.

Whether you like it or not, the seceding states had done so legally, within the framework of existing law. When South Carolina seceded, the Union garrison at Fort Sumter became a foreign military outpost. The attack on Sumter was completely within the accepted military usages of the time.

Homestead

You don't secede with cannon and troops.

That is an act of war.

The south rebelled and tried to force an exit. They got their ass handed to them for their trouble.

The Constitution was a contract all parties voluntarily agreed to.

To dissolve a contract one out of two things must happen.

The first is through mutual negotiations and agreement. This does not require cannons and rifles.

The other is by breach of contract. The South would have to show where the North was in breach of the Constitution. the grievances would have to be brought before the proper authority and then have a judgement made by that authority.

The South didn't show a breach of contract, it attacked a federal fortification with cannon and infantry.

Every year in this country, contracts are dissolved, I can't think of one that was dissolved, in what would be considered a legal manner, by taking the law into their own hands and attacking buildings and personnel of the people they have a disagreement with.

You seem to have a problem facing reality.

Loki Loc: Georgia

The South attacked a Federal fortification with infantry? Fort Sumter? They must have been exceptional swimmers.

You said......

"The other is by breach of contract. The South would have to show where the North was in breach of the Constitution. the grievances would have to be brought before the proper authority and then have a judgement made by that authority."

What would you consider "the proper authority?" The same Federal Government that the Southern states were separating from, who had a vested interest in preventing that secession? That is like calling a stalker the "proper authority" when you attempt to get a restraining order.
Better still, you probably think that the American Revolution should have been decided by asking King George if we could have permission to secede from the British Empire. He was, after all, the proper authority.
You still have not addressed the issue of Virginia, who reserved the right of secession for whatever reason as a condition of ratification of that very Constitution that you mentioned. Virginia did not fire on Federal troops until they invaded Virginia to force her back into the Union that she had left legally.
Cannons and rifles, indeed.
If you wish an example of how the Federal Government honors it's contracts, look no further than the native Indian tribes. It is hard to find one the government did not breach a contract with. I suppose you think those tribes should have gone to the "proper authorities" also.

As to facing reality, you seem to have your own issues with that one.

Homestead

Oh that's right, the union troops went for a swim, leaving the fort empty and the confederates never bothered to enter the empty fort with troops. Personally I don't blame them, since if the South is as stupid as you make them out to be, none of them learned how to swim, because according to you, that's the only way to get to the fort. It must have been hell on the union solders swimming there with guns and artillery on their backs, but at least the North could swim, unlike the South.

Or did they hold the fort with Southern grand mothers who could swim?

"Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard bombarded Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. After a 34-hour exchange of artillery fire, Anderson and 86 soldiers surrendered the fort on April 13. Confederate troops then occupied Fort Sumter for nearly four years, resisting several bombardments by Union forces before abandoning the garrison prior to William T. Sherman’s capture of Charleston in February 1865"



Lincoln-Douglas Debates

"Only the power of the federal government, as exercised by Congress, could ultimately extinguish slavery."

Lincoln opened the campaign on an ominous note, warning that the agitation over slavery would not cease until a crisis had been passed that resulted either in the extension of slavery to all the territories and states or in its ultimate extinction. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” he declared. Lincoln’s forecast was a statement of what would be known as the irrepressible conflict doctrine. The threat of slavery expansion, he believed, came not from the slaveholding South but from Douglas’s popular sovereignty position–allowing the territories to decide for themselves whether they wished to have slavery.

Fundamental to Lincoln’s argument was his conviction that slavery must be dealt with as a moral wrong. It violated the statement in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, and it ran counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The “real issue” in his contest with Douglas, Lincoln insisted, was the issue of right and wrong, and he charged that his opponent was trying to uphold a wrong. Only the power of the federal government, as exercised by Congress, could ultimately extinguish slavery.

At the same time, Lincoln assured southerners that he had no intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it existed and assured northerners that he was opposed to the political and social equality of the races, points on which he and Douglas agreed.

Douglas rejected Lincoln’s notion of an irrepressible conflict and disagreed with his analysis of the intentions of the Founding Fathers, pointing out that many of them were slaveholders who believed that each community should decide the question for itself. A devoted Jacksonian, he insisted that power should reside at the local level and should reflect the wishes of the people. He was convinced, however, that slavery would be effectively restricted for economic, geographic, and demographic reasons and that the territories, if allowed to decide, would choose to be free.

On election day, the voters of Illinois chose members of the state legislature who in turn reelected Douglas to the Senate in January 1859. Although Lincoln lost, the Republicans received more popular votes than the Democrats, signaling an important shift in the political character of the state. Moreover, Lincoln had gained a reputation throughout the North. He was invited to campaign for Republican candidates in other states and was now mentioned as a candidate for the presidency. In winning, Douglas further alienated the Buchanan administration and the South, was soon to be stripped of his power in the Senate, and contributed to the division of the Democratic party.
http://www.history.com/topics/lincoln-douglas-debates#

Loki Loc: Georgia

I believe you said that the South attacked Fort Sumter with artillery and infantry. In fact, there was no infantry assault on the Fort. Period. Regarding Lincoln's feelings about blacks......


The Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part I
Abraham Lincoln,Stephen Douglas
Charleston, Illinois
September 18, 1858

"While I was at the hotel to—day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

The text of Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, Editor of the New York Tribune, August 22, 1862......

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."



http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/letter-to-horace-greeley-august-22-1862/

Homestead

Now post the rest of it.

Lincoln:
'I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position, the negro should be denied every thing.
I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife.
My understanding is that I can just let her alone.
I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife.
So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.

In your attempt to rewrite history you want to maintain that because Lincoln wasn't head over heels in love with the negro, that is evidence that he cared not at all about them.
Lincoln, like the others of his times were creatures of the times. The black man could not excel, because he was held back, so any individual black man observed, would appear less than a white man.

In one of Lincoln other speeches he said that the negro may not be equal to the white man, but, no one can say that he is not entitled to the bread he earns with his own hands.

That can't happen under slavery.

As Barack Obama would say, as Lincoln "evolved," his opinions would change.

At one point, he thought he had the answer, when he offered a group of negros the opportunity to create an entirely black state out of the new territories. He was shocked when they refused and wanted to remain as citizens of the United States. So he asked why? They said, because they were fighting for the freedom and liberty that was the United States and that they were citizens of America.


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/


Now that you've read the above and posted it, try understanding it.

Later on in the war, Lincoln would say that he felt that the union will survive the war, but, it will have to be all slavery or no slavery, the nation could no longer go forward as half and half.

The very force dividing the union, was slavery.

So the war was about slavery, get over it!

Though maybe you could split hairs and say that it wasn't about slavery directly, because the war wasn't started to stop the South from having slaves.
The war was started to keep slavery from expanding into territories were it never existed.

But, that is still about slavery and the only thing that resolved it was the Civil War.


http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/letter-to-horace-greeley-august-22-1862/[/quote]

Loki Loc: Georgia

You still have not addressed the main point, which is that the seceding states had every right to secede, and that secession and contract negotiations are two entirely different things. Lincoln stated categorically that he did not consider blacks equal to whites, and any feelings he may have had included his view of them as second or third class citizens who could not vote, or hold public office or serve on juries. If he wanted them free, what did he want them free as?

Loki Loc: Georgia

"Though maybe you could split hairs and say that it wasn't about slavery directly, because the war wasn't started to stop the South from having slaves.
The war was started to keep slavery from expanding into territories were it never existed."

How do you reconcile what you just said with your claim that the South started the war? The South started the war to keep slavery from expanding? You can't have it both ways. The states had every right to secede. The powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people, remember? There was no law preventing secession, and the fact that three of the original states reserved the right to secede as a condition of ratification argues that the Union was the aggressor. Remember, Virginia legally declared her independence, initially as a separate Republic, in a completely lawful manner, and they were invaded by a Northern Army to force them back into the Union before they initiated any military action against the US.

Homestead

You like definitions, let's try this:

rebel (noun)
1. a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.

verb (used without object), rebel, rebelled, rebelling.
5. to reject, resist, or rise in arms against one's government or ruler.

Synonyms
1. insurrectionist, mutineer, traitor. 1, 3. insurgent. 3. mutinous. 5. revolt, mutiny.
*******************************************

revolt
verb (used without object)
1. to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny:

noun
6. the act of revolting; an insurrection or rebellion.
*********************************************

revolution
noun
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
************************************************

secede

verb (used without object), seceded, seceding.
1.to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.
*******************************************

Notice how Rebel entails armed conflict with violence, such as in a revolt or mutiny by traitors.
No where in the Constitution does it give any state the right to up rise and throw the federal government off by force of arms.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Notice that under secede, one formally withdraws from an alliance.
To formally withdraw from an alliance, one needs the cooperation of the other partners in the organization.
No where does seceding give one partner the right to negotiate by armed conflict.

That's why we have words like rebellion and revolution which is what the South was doing. That is not secession.
**********************************

Again, the Civil War was started by the South, not the North.

There was no war started to free the slaves.

The South started the war so that they could expand slavery.

The North wasn't stopping slavery in the South, but, they were not going to allow slavery to expand.

The answer to expanding slavery was NO!

NO, was not an acceptable answer to the South, so they went to war to make it happen anyway.

Homestead

You really are being a pin head.

It is the South that wanted to expand slavery into the new territories.
So it was the South that fought to expand slavery.

The North said NO!

The South tried an end run around that, by flooding the new territories with slaves and slave owners, so that the new states could then vote to have slavery.

Once it was realized what the South was doing, non slave owners flooded into the territories to wash out the pro slavery vote. Which they eventually did.

The South that was trying to stack the vote towards slavery, got pissed when the vote was stacked against slavery. It seems the South doesn't mind doing things in a certain way, as long as no one else does the same thing.
*****************************

You've got to give me a date on this.

Virginia legally declared her independence and they were invaded by a Northern Army to force them back into the Union
**************************************

It is a brilliant framing of the issue, which Lincoln proceeds to characterize as nothing less than an attack on the very notion of democracy:

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled—the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains—its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion—that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war—teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war.
http://www.historynet.com/secession

Loki Loc: Georgia

Where do I begin? The South seceded legally. The secession itself was legal and peaceful. South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter after the Union forces refused to leave what was no longer their possession. Virginia, Tennesee, Arkansas and North Carolina were still in the Union when this occurred. I don't know where you get the idea that the right of secession in 1861 was contingent on some sort of contractual law (which incidentally, you do not appear to understand.) Virginia seceded legally from the Union on May 24th, 1861, six weeks after the attack on Fort Sumter. They did so without firing a shot or offering any sort of hostilities.
The same day, Union forces invaded Virginia to force her back into the Union she had seceded from in a peaceful and lawful manner. Union forces fired the first shots in Virginia.
You continue to use the terms "rebel" and "rebellion" to describe what was essentially a legal and peaceful separation. Except in the case of South Carolina, Union forces initiated hostilities, and the "attack" on Fort Sumter produced zero casualties.
Since you insist on pseudo-legal terminology, I suggest you procure a copy of the Law of Fraudulent Transactions. It is an authoritative work on contractual agreements.
Breach of Contract does not always require litigation. I suggest you also obtain a copy of Black's Law Dictionary for a more complete dissertation on contractual obligations vis-a-vis secession. You should probably also invest in a good history book.

You said.....


"Notice that under secede, one formally withdraws from an alliance.
To formally withdraw from an alliance, one needs the cooperation of the other partners in the organization.
No where does seceding give one partner the right to negotiate by armed conflict."
That is precisely what the Union did. Every Southern state seceded without violence. The violence did not begin until after the separation had occurred, and in almost every case it was initiated by Union forces using force of arms to compel legally seceding states against their will.

You also said.....

"The answer to expanding slavery was NO!"

"NO, was not an acceptable answer to the South, so they went to war to make it happen anyway."
No was not an acceptable answer to the South so they seceded peacefully and were attacked by the Union Armies. Get your facts straight. With the exception of Fort Sumter, where no casualties resulted, every hostility was initiated by Northern forces. Bear in mind that at least four southern states were still in the Union at the time Fort Sumter was fired on.
Your claim that the "South began the war" is a bald-faced lie. Whether you agree with their reasons for secession or not, the act itself was legal at the time and place and in every instance was accomplished by popular vote.
By the way, you stated that the war began to stop the expansion of slavery, then you stated that the South began the war to expand slavery. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.